alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20162 and #20163; NORTH CAROLINA Disaster Number NC-20001]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 02/01/2024. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornado. *Incident Period:*
                         01/09/2024.
 DATES: Issued on 02/01/2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/01/2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/01/2024.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Catawba. *Contiguous Counties:* North Carolina: Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Iredell, and Lincoln. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.688Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Business and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20162C and for economic injury is 201630. The State which received an EIDL Declaration is North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2024-02547 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1597 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State 

of California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast 

of the State of California, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘California Ocean and 

5 Coastal Protection Act’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1597 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER2 TAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 

3 SHELF. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provision of this Act or any other law and except as 

11 provided in paragraph (2), beginning on the date of 

12 enactment of this subsection, the conduct of oil and 

13 gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities is pro14 hibited in areas of the outer Continental Shelf lo15 cated off the coast of the State of California. 

16 ‘‘(2) EFFECT.—Nothing in this subsection af17 fects any rights under leases issued under this Act 

18 before the date of enactment of this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-85,705-01

EX P ARTE DANIEL MARTEZ JOHNSON, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 54,384-B IN THE 181s t DISTRICT COURT

F ROM P OTTE R COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W
. 2 d 8 2 4 , 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of ag grava ted sexual assault of a child and two counts of indece ncy with a child. He was sentenc ed to fifty year s’ imprisonment in the aggr av at ed sexual assault of a child count and twenty year s’ imprisonment in each of

the indece ncy

with a child counts. Applicant contends that his counsel re n d er ed ineffe ctive assistance beca use he failed to timely file a noticeof appe al.2

The rec ord before u s re flec ts that a notice of appea l was not timely filed due to a miscommunication betwe en trial and appellate counsel. We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 54,384-B from the 181st District Court of Potter County
. Applicant is ordered returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, o b t ai n a m eaningf ul appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court s h al l deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calculated as if the s entenc e had been i mp o sed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s after th e mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Crimin al Justice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

28, 2016 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated
March 6, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule II of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) for the year-ended December 31, 2005, included in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of that report in the Companys Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-136864, 333-52876, 333-55941,
333-55933 and 33-64582).



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
|San Jose, California  
|March 31, 2008
#### W. A. McCAY et al., Appellants, v. ARNOLD COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

No. 3667.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Nov. 5, 1959.

Wilson F. Walters, Denison, for appellant.

Curtis White, John Fox Holt, Dallas, for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

In this case appellants complain (1) of order overruling their plea of privilege, and (2) of the refusal of the trial court to rule on their motion to dismiss, filed and urged prior to the determination of the plea, based on evidence adduced in the hearing of the plea of privilege. The motion contains no reference to the plea.

By invoking the action of the court on the motion, appellants waived the plea. O’Neal v. Texas Bank & Trust Co., 118 Tex. 133, 11 S.W.2d 791; Barrett v. Cheatham, Tex.Civ.App., 281 S.W.2d 761; Rule 84, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The failure of the trial court to act on the motion to dismiss, as urged, is not subject to review by appeal. 3 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 63, p. 328. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Terra L. Underwood, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Technol Fuel
          Conditioners, Inc.

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
          untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact
          necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
          under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
          the period covered by this quarterly report.

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
          information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
          material respects the financial condition, results from operations and
          cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
          this quarterly report.


DATE: May 5, 2006                                    By: /s/ Terra L. Underwood
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             Terra L. Underwood
                                                             Treasurer
Paul Applewhite

Applewhite Aero

PO Box 46955 Seattle, WA 98146

Subject: Docket FAA

- 2013

- 0654, Exemption from 14CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b)

Applewhite Aero is applying for an experimental ai rworthiness certifi cate to operate a small unmanned aircraft in an approved operating area. As these aircraft a re sma ll and incapable of carrying a human, the aircraft are not suitable for carrying the fl ight manual, or displaying registrations and airworthiness certificates. These items will be maintained at the ground station with the pilot in command of the UAV.

Applewhite Aero believes the approval of our exemption from 14CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) and 91.9(b) is in the public interest as it supports commerce in the development and mar k eting of UAV technology , as well as supporting safe and appropriate procedures for integrating UAV technology into the NAS. By

maintaini ng the documents required by 91.9 and 91.203 at the ground control s tation with the pilot in command, the exemption provides an equivalent level of safety to the original intent of the regulations

.

To summarize, Applewhite Aero is requesting an exemption to 14 CFR 91 .203 (a) and (b) and 14 CFR 91.9 (b) to support the operation of small unmanned aircraft registered and certificated by the FAA to operate within the limitations identified by the FAA in the national airspace.

Respectfully,

Paul G. Applewhite Applewhite Aero
#### CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. John M. RYAN, Appellee.

No. 3674.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 29, 1959.

*822Worsham, Forsythe & ' Riley, William Woodburn, Dallas, for appellant.

Hughes, Donosky & McCracken, Dallas, for appellee.

WILSON, Justice.

The principal question in this non-jury case is whether plaintiff must show how he acquired a food product containing a foreign substance which injured him, in order to sustain his judgment for damages under the implied warranty theory.

Although plaintiff alleged he purchased a “T-V Chicken Dinner” which was manufactured and distributed by appellant, at a retail store in Dallas, his proof extended only to showing that he had first seen the food product when he “took it out of the refrigerator and put it in the oven to cook it.” There is no evidence as to how he came to possess it.

Appellant does not challenge the trial court findings that appellant manufactured the food product involved, which is packaged, sealed and not subject to examination ; that appellant “somehow enclosed within the sealed container of said dinner” a metal washer; that the dinner was prepared for consumption in accordance with directions on the package, and that plaintiff was injured by the washer.

Liability of manufacturer to con-, sumer of defective food products does not rest in tort or contract in Texas, but upon, a broad principle of public policy imposing an obligation in the nature of an implied warranty to protect public health. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps, 139 Tex. 609, 164 S.W.2d 828, 829, 142 A.L.R. 1479. The principle is derived in part from the intention of the manufacturer that, the products “shall pass from hand to hand until they are finally used by some remote consumer.” The Supreme Court, in the Decker case, rejected the requirement of privity, and in justification of the imposition of the warranty, declared the rule that the implied warranty “runs with the article” is logical and sound. The rationale of'the decision is that the manufacturer expects the “appearance of suitableness to continue with the product until someone is induced to consume it as food.”

Under the court’s findings, appellee was therefore not required to show how he acquired the product.

There is no evidence as to reasonableness of dental fees included in the judgment. The judgment is reduced in the amount allowed therefor, and one-fourth of costs on appeal are taxed against appellee. Other points are overruled. As so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10203]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7434]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Sarcophagus''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Sarcophagus,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit object at The Cloisters Museum and Gardens, New 
York, New York, from on or about May 2, 2011, until on or about May 2, 
2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
description of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 20, 2011.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-10203 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### Alfredo ALBIDREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28609.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted, under multiple counts of the information, of three separate offenses of selling beer in a dry area and his punishment was assessed at fines in the total amount of $750.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Merced NAVA, (aka Ernie, Tomas, Lascano), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5185.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Jan. 21, 2003.

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

The United States moves for summary affirmance of the August 30, 2002 judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Merced Nava’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Nava filed a complaint alleging that:

> Plaintiff has been victimized and negated by the effected conspiracy of many links commanded by the United States Soccer Federation consummating the *perfect and impune crime of stealing*plaintiffs methods to produce world class professional soccer players and to deny to plaintiff the international opportunities and rewards player and coaches USSF has taught and trained using the methods USSF and its coconspirators stole from plaintiff, the “To’To in the Grass Football Soccer Academy.”

*547The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court determined that “[bjecause the allegations of the complaint state a claim which appears to be lodged against the United States Soccer Federation, rather than the United States, the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs complaint.”

Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate “when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists”. *Joshua v. United*States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). In his 70-page complaint, Nava seeks damages from several entities and individuals but not from the United States.

The Court of Federal Claims correctly held that it lacks jurisdiction over claims against defendants other than the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We conclude that no substantial question regarding the outcome of this appeal exists; therefore, summary affirmance is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Take A Ride, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| /s/ Anthony DeMint                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

November 1, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1625 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1625

   To prohibit funding for the Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

  Mr. Manzullo (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. 
 Conaway, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Posey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit funding for the Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) 
                                program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT INNOVATION VENTURES 
              (DIV) PROGRAM.

    (a) Prohibition.--No funds available to the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID) may be used to carry out the 
Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) program or any successor program.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to funds 
available to USAID for the DIV program or any successor program that 
are unobligated on or after such date of enactment.

SEC. 2. DEBT REDUCTION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to 
USAID for the DIV program or any successor program that are unobligated 
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act shall be deposited 
into the General Fund of the Treasury and shall be used only for 
reducing the debt of the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 4.1

                                   RESOLUTIONS

      WHEREAS, the Company is indebted to Zack Melzer and Yael Melzer for
services rendered and expenses incurred in connection with the business of the
Company.

RESOLVED, that in payment for services rendered and expenses incurred in
connection with the business of the Company the Company hereby grants to Zack
Melzer and Yael Meltzer 89,767 shares of the Company's common stock, valued at
$.16 per share, to be registered in a registration statement on Form S-8 to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") promptly after the
Company becomes current in all if its filing obligations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the annual report of Communication Intelligence Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guido DiGregorio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:           March 31, 2010





By: /s/ Guido D. DiGregorio


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer